On 2 maj 2007, at 12.23, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> (Just to clarify: My service does not hand out actual badges at all
> to discourage the badge hunting behavior and to avoid the situation
> where a bug fix makes a page ineligible for the badge and the page
> author complains about the bug fix.)
Good move. I agree with that.
> I think many people have clung too strongly to the wishy-washy word
> "deprecated". The WHATWG draft goes further and outright
> *obsoletes* stuff.
Great.
>> Apologies if that is already in the HTML 5 WD. I have not had time
>> to read every word of it.
>
> Well, yeah, much of the current discussion could be avoided by
> reading the draft as well. :-)
I have read it, but as I said not every single word. It is a long,
confusing, and difficult document to get through. Parts of it remind
me of trying to read and understand WCAG 2. I still haven't been able
to find where the difference between what browsers must accept and
authors may produce is clearly explained.
> Mozilla (a browser vendor) is funding the development of an HTML5
> conformance checker. Rejecting non-conforming content in browsers
> is not the right way to "encourage" because it would make new
> browsers less permissive and would give the impression to users
> that old browsers work better with real content.
I am _not_ suggesting that non-conforming content is rejected, only
that there is some way of making the user (who can then use that info
when filing a bug report) aware that the page that they are having a
problem with (or not) is non-conforming. If displaying errors at all
is so horribly bad, why do browsers bother with JavaScript errors?
/Roger
--
http://www.456bereastreet.com/